It's probably not good to really get involved in this discussion, as it is kinda OT..
I agree with most of your points, but not all.. I think there's a difference between the 'small inventor' and the 'small software developer'. I think every project a developer will work on will at least break a few patents, as there are so many patents (that make no sense). Microsoft for example has the patent on a 'double click'. Also, big companies like MS get a few thousand new patents each year, so I can imagine they spend millions on people who are only working on getting as much patents as possible just 'in case they need it'.. Because of this, big companies ( I just used MS in this example, as it is the most obvious example) will have so many powers, that they can break any small software company; as there will usually be 1 or 2 patents they are breaking.. If something like this would happen to a small software house, the only reasonable thing they can do is to agree with the first settlement they are offered, because you don't want to face their army of lawyers.. I agree, in theory software patents are a good thing, in reality it doesn't work though.. You won't win a lawsuit if you are on the right side of the law, but if you have the most cash.. Dropping that patent system will make everyone equal again, and not the one with the most cash will come out as the winner, but the one making the best product.. The only edge you have over those bigger companies is that you are able to take more risks and move quicker.. Innovation generally comes from the small companies, not the big ones.. Evert hank williams wrote: > On 12/29/05, Jonas Beckeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I am not sure exactly what the penalty is for not >>> doing so, like for example loosing the ability to claim >>> damages up until the point of disclosure, or worse. >>> >> Would be very interesting to hear. I'm talking to >> >> >>> Oh also, this is not just US patent law. Most of the laws on >>> patents have been "internationalized". >>> >> As I understand it (haven't examined it in depth though), the EU's >> *software* patent law still differs significantly from the US' - there was a >> lot of buzz this autumn when a new, more US-like law, was NOT passed. >> >> I *think* I'm still free to infringe all I want as a non-US citizen, as long >> as I don't sell the product that uses the patent (at least that's my secret >> hope). >> >> > > That is exactly right. You have to apply for patents in each country > individually. But they have streamlined this process somewhat. > Actually the changes in patent law have been on the US side to make it > more "european". For example, patent applications used to be secret > until issue. Now patent applications are public, in order to allow for > public review. This is a serious thing to consider when filing for a > patent because if the patent is rejected, you cant then keep your > invention secret. > > I am sure that there are still differences in the law, but the bottom > line is that most things that are patentable in the US are patentable > elsewhere, and the basic concept is the same. A patent is a legal > monopoly granted by a government. The patent owner's remedies include > extracting royalties and/or keeping infringing technology off the > market. > > By the way, patent protection is **by far** more beneficial to the > little inventor than the big company. I agree that some patents issued > dont make sense. But the only protection a little guy has to prevent a > big company from seeing his success and stealing it is patent law. > Companies with lots of money have ***all*** the power. The people that > get sued over patents are always the big companies - who try > everything in the book to avoid paying a patent license fee. This is > because most little guys cant afford to sue. It costs at least > millions if not tens of millions to win against an infringer. So > typically a little guy sells his patent to someone who has deeper > pockets and is in the business of "collection". But this is only > because the little guy doesnt have the 10 million dollars necessary to > win the battle. > > An interesting, and poigniant story about this is the guy who invented > the walkman. Sony "stole" it and fought for years. At the end of the > day the guy got a few million dollars for an invention clearly worth > probably hundreds of billions of dollars over time. > > The key issue is whether a patent is a "natural course of events" > patent or a truly novel concept. It is easy to look back at an > invention and say that it was obvious. And sometimes it is true. But I > tell you, whenever I invent something really great, I am concerned > that it just seems, well obvious -even though it doesnt exist. So the > point is that many great new ideas have the hallmark of "seeming > obvious". > > So, in conclusion, all this patent hating stuff is funny to me. The > big companies really are the ones that hate patent law because they > have enough money to compete and steal at will. Microsoft hates > patents. Its not the little guys that ***EVER*** get hit with the > reprocussions of patent law. No company is ever not funded over fear > of patent infringement. It is rare that a little guy will be put out > of business over a patent. And once you are big you can afford it. So > the bottom line is all of you guys that hate patents are really doing > the bidding of the huge multinational companies that hate them way > more than you do. You should all get checks from Microsoft. > > Regards > Hank > > >> BTW, I think MM has patented image synthesis as well, no 5,467,443 - >> generating pixels from a set of parameters (if I decode it properly). That's >> like all image formats except pure bitmaps. Procedural textures, vector >> formats, and probably all 3D graphics as well. I wonder if they've sued >> nVIDIA and ATI yet? And Microsoft for having the WMF file format and ways of >> presenting it? >> >> /Jonas >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/216 - Release Date: 2005-12-29 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> osflash mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
